USPTO Patents Application 09766382

Atty. Dkt. No. 023627-0201

REMARKS

Status of Claims:

Claims 2 and 5 remain cancelled. New claim 22 is added. Thus, claims 1, 3-4, and 6-22
are present for examination.

Interview with Examiner:

Applicant expresses appreciation to the Examiner for the courtesy of the telephonic
interview on February 9, 2006. In the Interview Summary mailed February 15, 2006, the
Examiner indicated that the date of the interview was 08 February 2006, but the interview
actually occurred on February 9, 2006. The following individuals participated in the interview:
(i) Examiner Bruckart; (ii) Robert Betros, First Named Applicant; (iii) David Blumenthal,
Attorney for Applicant; and (iv) Justin Sobaje, Attorney for Applicant. No exhibit was shown,
and no demonstrations were conducted.

Before the interview, applicant faxed an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form with
an attached proposed claim amendment to the Examiner. During the interview, we discussed the
proposed claim amendment and the cited references, including Webb (U.S. Patent No.
6,880,010) and Cianfrocca et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,088,796) (hereinafter Cianfrocca).

With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph,
applicant proposed to delete the phrase "to a web server" from the claims as shown in the
proposed claim amendment to claim 1. Also, we discussed claim 1 with reference to FIG. 1 of
the present patent application to show that the claimed features of independent claim 1 have
support in the present patent application.

With regard to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Webb in view of Cianfrocca, we discussed claim distinctions between
the proposed amended claim language and the Webb and Cianfrocca references. In particular,
we pointed out that the proposed amended claim language recited, among other features, "a web

-7-

LACA_730721,2

Atty. Dkt. No. 023627-0201

server, said web server being configured to establish one socket connection with said client
through said firewall in response to an HTTP request from said client, said two-way
asynchronous communication between said messaging bus and said remote application occurring
over said one socket connection /' (Emphasis Added). We pointed out that neither Webb nor
Cianfrocca, alone or in combination, disclose such a feature. We discussed FIG. 1 of Webb with
the Examiner and pointed out that the notification connection 122 only allows for sending data
one way, and we pointed out that the request connection 124 only allows for synchronous
communication.

The Examiner agreed that the proposed claim amendment would overcome the cited
references. In the Interview Summary mailed February 15, 2006, the Examiner indicated that,
"[t]he proposed amendment does overcome the prior art because of its use of the two-way
asynchronous across one socket ." (Emphasis Added). Applicant expresses appreciation to the
Examiner for such indication.

Claim Rejection under 35 U,S.C. 112:

Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards
as the invention.

With respect to claims 1 and 21, as amended, the rejection is respectfully traversed.

The Examiner stated that the language "remote application being executed by a client to a
web server" in claims 1 and 21 was confusing. (Office Action; pages 2-3). Applicant has
amended claims 1 and 21 to delete the phrase "to a web server" in order to clarify the claims.

The Examiner further stated that, "[a]nother confusing limitation is the use of sockets and
HTTP requests to setup asynchronous connections." (Office Action; page 3). Also, the
Examiner stated that, "HTTP requests are unmistakably synchronous connections through a
firewall to a web server." (Office Action; page 3).

-8-

LACA_730721.2

Atty. Dkt. No. 023627-0201

Applicant has now amended claims 1 and 21 to recite the feature that, "said web server
configured to establish one socket connection with said client through said firewall and
configured to initialize the gateway CGI after receiving an HTTP request to initialize the gateway
CGI from said remote application over said one socket connection during a single HTTP
transaction with the remote application". In addition, independent claim 1 has been amended to
recite the feature, "wherein the gateway CGI is configured to perform operations to enable said
two-way asynchronous communication between said messaging bus and said remote application
to occur within the single HTTP transaction and over said one socket connection ". (Emphasis
Added). Also, independent claim 21 has been amended to recite the feature, "wherein the
gateway CGI is configured such that the operations executed by the gateway CGI enable said
two-way asynchronous communication between said messaging bus and said remote application
to occur within the single HTTP transaction and over said one socket connection ". (Emphasis
Added). Support for such features can be found in the specification at page 7, lines 6-15, and in
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/766,439 entitled "System and Method for Maintaining Two-Way
Asynchronous Notification between a Client and a Web Server", the contents of which were
incorporated by reference into the present application.

Therefore, independent claims 1 and 21, as amended, are believed to be in compliance
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.

Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103:

Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Webb et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,880,010) (hereinafter Webb) in view of
Cianfrocca et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,088,796) (hereinafter Cianfrocca).

Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Webb in
view of Cianfrocca and further in view of Gutfreund et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,192,394)
(hereinafter Gutfreund).

-9-

LACA_730721.2

Atty. Dkt. No. 023627-0201

Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Webb in
view of Cianfrocca and further in view of Derby et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,426,637) (hereinafter
Derby).

With respect to claims 1, 3-4, and 6-21, as amended, the rejections are respectfully
traversed.

Independent claim 1, as amended, recites a system for collaborative processing with
distributed applications, comprising:

"at least one application context in which an application is executed, the
application context including an application CGI for managing the application,
and a communication interface on which application data is communicated as
messages;

a messaging bus configured to communicate the messages for processing
by the application;

at least one gateway context including a gateway CGI configured for
maintaining two-way asynchronous communication between the messaging bus
and a remote application through a firewall, said remote application being
executed by a client, the gateway CGI configured to maintain the two-way
asynchronous communication until termination by the remote application or by
the gateway CGI; and

a web server, said web server configured to establish one socket
connection with said client through said firewall and configured to initialize the
gateway CGI after receiving an HTTP request to initialize the gateway CGI from
said remote application over said one socket connection during a single HTTP
transaction with the remote application;

wherein the gateway CGI is configured to perform operations to enable
said two-way asynchronous communication between said messaging bus and
said remote application to occur within the single HTTP transaction and over said
one socket connection ." (Emphasis Added).

Neither Webb nor Cianfrocca, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest a system
including the above-quoted features. In the Interview Summary mailed February 15, 2006, the
Examiner stated that, "[t]he proposed amendment does overcome the prior art because of its use

-10-

LACA_730721.2

Atty. Dkt. No. 023627-0201

of the two-way asynchronous across one socket ." (Emphasis Added). Independent claim 1 as
presently amended differs from the proposed amendment submitted to the Examiner before the
interview on February 9, 2006. However, independent claim 1 as presently amended does recite
the feature of, "wherein the gateway CGI is configured to perform operations to enable said two-
way asynchronous communication between said messaging bus and said remote application to
occur within the single HTTP transaction and over said one socket connection ." (Emphasis
Added). Thus, a system as recited in claim 1 does allow for two-way asynchronous
communication across one socket connection and, hence, recites the feature that the Examiner
indicated does overcome the prior art.

Therefore, independent claim 1, as amended, is neither disclosed nor suggested by the
Webb and Cianfrocca references and, hence, is believed to be allowable. The Patent Office has
not made out a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.

Independent claim 21, as amended, recites a system with features similar to features of a
system of independent claim 1 and, thus, is believed to be allowable for at least the same reasons
that independent claim 1 is believed to be allowable.

The dependent claims are deemed allowable for at least the same reasons indicated above
with regard to the independent claims from which they depend.

In addition, with regard to dependent claims 12-13, it is noted that Gutfreund does not
cure the deficiencies with respect to the teachings of Webb and Cianfrocca discussed above in
connection with independent claim 1 . Also, with regard to dependent claims 8-9, it is noted that
Derby does not cure the deficiencies with respect to the teachings of Webb and Cianfrocca
discussed above in connection with independent claim 1.

New independent claim 22 recites features not found in any of Webb, Cianfrocca,
Gutfreund, and Derby.

-11-

LACA 730721.2

Atty. Dkt No. 023627-0201

Conclusion:

Applicants believe that the present application is now in condition for allowance.
Favorable reconsideration of the application as amended is respectfully requested.

The Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned by telephone if it is felt that a
telephone interview would advance the prosecution of the present application.

The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may be
required regarding this application under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.16-1.17, or credit any overpayment, to
Deposit Account No. 50-0872. Should no proper payment be enclosed herewith, as by a check
being in the wrong amount, unsigned, post-dated, otherwise improper or informal or even
entirely missing, the Commissioner is authorized to charge the unpaid amount to Deposit
Account No. 50-0872.

If any extensions of time are needed for timely acceptance of papers submitted herewith,
Applicants hereby petition for such extension under 37 C.F.R. §1.136 and authorizes payment of
any such extensions fees to Deposit Account No. 50-0872.

Respectfully submitted,

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
Customer Number: 30542
Telephone: (310)975-7895
Facsimile: (310) 557-8475

David A. Blumenthal
Attorney for Applicant
Registration No. 26,257

-12-

LACA 730721.2